This is what I'd heard the past two months from Oiler and City Hall
sources... now with more and more of this stuff becoming public so I'm slowly
becoming a believer that there's some movement.
-seating capacity at 18,500... that's it.
-triple the luxury boxes... 120.
-underground LRT access via the secret LRT station.
-arena to be part of the condo-office tower-mall complex on the CN Rail site,
with the developer more than likely chipping in to offset the massive cost.
-still some issue with the Post Office site however.
-current lease could be broken early but EIG would have to pay penalty to Northlands (kind of like any mortgage).
-Edmonton's current arena is 12 years older than Calgary's and their new arena pitch is still in the works and wouldn't be considered for any level of government funding for a few years yet until after the new Edmonton one gets a look.
-the Edmonton taxpayer burden would NOT be as much as you think when you consider the % of the cost being paid by the Feds, the Prov, EIG and the private sector. There's a ticket surchage that may also be used to help offset things. Northlands may also partner up... making that lease issue a non-issue.
Some or all of this may have hit the papers already, but this is what I've been told, so you can compare notes and have some fun with it. Let's see what happens.
I've had some heated discussions on this board regarding taxpayer support of a private, for-profit enterprise - especially for something so ultimately trivial as pro-sports. For example, I'm 100% against the subsidies that are paid to the Oilers by the City in order to offset operating expenses. While there are definitely elements of this plan that are conceptually identical re: taxpayer support of private enterprise, imo there is more than enough public good that would eventually come out of this to justify significant taxpayer support. This is something I'd be happy to see built (partially) with my tax dollars.
I've had some heated discussions on this board regarding taxpayer support of a private, for-profit enterprise - especially for something so ultimately trivial as pro-sports. For example, I'm 100% against the subsidies that are paid to the Oilers by the City in order to offset operating expenses. While there are definitely elements of this plan that are conceptually identical re: taxpayer support of private enterprise, imo there is more than enough public good that would eventually come out of this to justify significant taxpayer support. This is something I'd be happy to see built (partially) with my tax dollars.
Interesting points...
but I'm sure when you take what the City gives UP through tax breaks, they more than get BACK through other forms of business taxes and residual monies as a result of having an NHL team in town. You scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours.
For example, I was told that the Westin Hotel, which pays City taxes, lost close to a half a million dollars in revenue during the NHL lockout. That means cuts in staffing, who pay City taxes, the nearby bars and restaurants take a hit, stores take a hit, etc. There's a benefit of having a team in town. My relatives in Winnipeg thought nothing of losing the Jets, but they've seen how much it hurt that City's economy. They'd now happily cough up to get a team back. Like I said, you got to spend some dough to make some dough... the forward thinking Cities think that way.
-the Edmonton taxpayer burden would NOT be as much as you think when you consider the % of the cost being paid by the Feds, the Prov, EIG and the private sector.
Just one niggling criticism, Bryn - the Feds and the Province may pitch in, but there's still only one taxpayer to fund them all...
Have you ever met or spoken to Dr. David Whitson at the U of A? About 13 years ago he taught a course on the economy, social impact, etc of pro sports. I took the course thinking it would be one of those cake-walks everyone takes from time to time in order to pad their GPA. Turned out to be extremely interesting. You should consider having him as a guest on your show (if you haven't already) as this arena story gains more and more traction. Someone with his background could provide some interesting insights...
Just one niggling criticism, Bryn - the Feds and the Province may pitch in, but there's still only one taxpayer to fund them all...
Right.
But there's a benefit to everyone to chip in to build a New Rink or Concert Hall or Skateboard Park or Square. Whatever. Don't forget that they'll be more than just hockey played in a new rink. Concerts, trade shows etc.
The bottom line is that we spent our tax money on a new facility way back in the 70's. Thirty years ago is a long time and we've got more than our share of 'cultural payback' out of the old barn.
I support the Arts as much as I do Sports. To me, it defines the very fabric of what a vibrant City is all about.
Plus, I get a strong feeling, from those who've talked to me, that they'll be more private money sunk into this than public dough. That said... we still have to chip in.
I don't take public transport, but I still support use of my tax money for the bus system and LRT. Everyone has to share in the cost.
An interesting consideration though thats been left unstated is that a marginal increase in "public seating" results in the public not being served appreciably better by the new facility.
If the only reason for building it is more concessions, more restaurants, more skyboxes, i.e. more revenue than its obvious who should front the bill.
Increasing attendance significantly at least offers a rationale as to why the public would have any reason in paying for it. That is the public is served by the facility being more available.
Why should I, through any of my taxes pay for an increase from 17,000-18,000?
When Rexall place completely breaks down which is predicted in about 10 years. There will be no arena then, no place for concerts and the Oilers will have to leave Edmonton.
But you will have saved your tax money!
There is no question that Edmonton needs a new facility.
Those two don't bother me, but stuff like Jobing.com Arena and National Car Rental Center do.
Agreed. Most of the time, I don't care (I'd probably end up calling a new Edmonton arena Northlands half the time anyway), but things like Jobbing.com arena bugs me to no end.
When Rexall place completely breaks down which is predicted in about 10 years. There will be no arena then, no place for concerts and the Oilers will have to leave Edmonton.
But you will have saved your tax money!
There is no question that Edmonton needs a new facility.
10 years you are being generous, I would like to have seen the job they needed to do to reinforce the roof when they replaced the scoreboard a few years ago because that roof was on its last legs
Have you ever met or spoken to Dr. David Whitson at the U of A? About 13 years ago he taught a course on the economy, social impact, etc of pro sports. I took the course thinking it would be one of those cake-walks everyone takes from time to time in order to pad their GPA. Turned out to be extremely interesting. You should consider having him as a guest on your show (if you haven't already) as this arena story gains more and more traction. Someone with his background could provide some interesting insights...
There will be more information 'leaked' on a new rink in the early new year once the study on the current Rexall Place is complete. They're in the process of figuring out how expensive it would be to 'blow out' the ends of Rexall to put more sky boxes into the barn and expand the concourse. The team seems to be happy with between 17 and 18 thousand as a seating capacity though. Those figures should be finalized by mid to late January.
But I will track the guy down at the U of A for the early part of the year. Did you pass the course?
There will be more information 'leaked' on a new rink in the early new year once the study on the current Rexall Place is complete. They're in the process of figuring out how expensive it would be to 'blow out' the ends of Rexall to put more sky boxes into the barn and expand the concourse. The team seems to be happy with between 17 and 18 thousand as a seating capacity though. Those figures should be finalized by mid to late January.
But I will track the guy down at the U of A for the early part of the year. Did you pass the course?
if you can't get the guy another guy at the U of A is Dr Dan Mason, he teaches Peds 497 - the Business of Hockey
this kind of BS attitude is the reason why the city will be a second rate city and never at the forefront. Whaaa why should my tax dollars support that, you want a reason (and this is not just for a new arena - it is for all major projects) because there is a NEED for it and it only makes the city better for it.
How is this connected with what I wrote? I'm not interested as a tax payer to have a building paid for by the taxpayers that does not increase attendance significantly and so the only beneficiary of this are owners/skybox leasers who should then pay for it.
I honestly see no other benefit in the new facility for the average joe if it does not increase attendance so that more joes could attend. A new prohibitively expensive building built just to increase revenue and nothing else is not of community benefit IMO.
If it increases attendance to 21,000 like in Calgary than I am, as a taxpayer, all for it.
When Rexall place completely breaks down which is predicted in about 10 years. There will be no arena then, no place for concerts and the Oilers will have to leave Edmonton.
But you will have saved your tax money!
There is no question that Edmonton needs a new facility.
So on this thread theres comments about roof problems, Rexall breaking down completely in 10 years etc except I've heard nothing of the sort from any source that has an independent view.
Anybody feel free to cite some unbiased links to this?
Or should I just believe the latest from EIG or whoever?
And as far as "No question that Edmonton needs a new facility"
Of course theres question. Its debatable. it certainly will be municipally. But apparently not here.
People should momentarily consider the bias represented here though. This is not necessarily representative of the needs and wants of the greater Edmonton community. I'm just trying to be objective. The city has many other needs.
So...because of what you witnessed in a football stadium there is no point in making any improvements because people will find a way to scew it up anyway.
What a classic example of glass half empty thinking.
No, simply a lifetime observation on how any form of thoroughfares are utilized. Plus Sociology coursework and papers on theories of crowds.
Whether it be corridor, concourse, freeway, midway, etc make it wider, provide more lanes, and it will still be jammed. People will find a way to block it.
What this doesn't happen you say?
Truckers lining up 3 a breast on yellowhead freeway waiting to "blow each other off the line" is a classic example. Theres a human, even animal, inate nature to simply use up more space less efficiently as its provided.
Another example? Busses. the bus can be one of those bending double length ones and unless you have staff in white gloves shoving people to the back the standing room capacity is not significantly more than on a normal bus. Everybody will stay herded in the front. Am I wrong?
Increase space and the groups of people talking become larger and have more personal space distance between them thereby blocking more traffic.
Humans don't use added space very efficiently. Debate if you want.
You've heard of the Economics version of Trivial Pursuit?
10,000 questions.
1,000,000,000 answers.
That said - although Andrew Zimbalist is best known as one of the most prominent sports economists in the world, I'd take what he say's with a grain of salt - he questions the entire economics of sport as entertainment.
That said - I don't disagree with many of his points. Although, as a pragmatist, I believe that a waitress at a local BP's would likely give a more realistic perspective of the economic impact of losing an NHL team, rather than one from a tenured professor at a US college.
How is this connected with what I wrote? I'm not interested as a tax payer to have a building paid for by the taxpayers that does not increase attendance significantly and so the only beneficiary of this are owners/skybox leasers who should then pay for it.
I honestly see no other benefit in the new facility for the average joe if it does not increase attendance so that more joes could attend. A new prohibitively expensive building built just to increase revenue and nothing else is not of community benefit IMO.
If it increases attendance to 21,000 like in Calgary than I am, as a taxpayer, all for it.
Is this clear?
It will be 18 thousand- tops. So I guess you need to be prepared to be disappointed.
By the way, Calgary's doesn't seat 21 thousand.
but the difference is when push comes to shove you guys built GM place, commited to the infrastructure for the Olympics, committed to the revitalization of the coastline. Here we have been talking about revitalizing downtown and the river valley for years and have squat to show for it, why because of the whiners: don't hurt out greenspace, don't destroy this, don't do that, not with my tax dollars...etc
How do you revitalize a river valley? Many of us in Edmonton would prefer to let nature keep it as is thank you.
What I am detecting is that you prefer that there NOT be a plurality of thought and opinion in regards to municipal projects and that we should rush forth with your biggest and best projects mantra. Yet this very thinking resulted in a "world class" rapid transit system that has gone virtually nowhere in 30 years due to massive costs of the mode Edmonton selected whereas the prudent, utilitarian system selected for Calgary is a massive civic success.
It has also resulted in a world class Commonwealth Stadium ( I do like it) that gets very little use.
Not everything thats built turns out to be as useful or necessary as it was ambitiously percieved.
Theres a need for the type of prudent decision making that seems to frustrate you. It attempts to preclude rushing forth into ill-advised projects.
To many, the Big Owe was once percieved as a french world wonder on par with the Eiffel tower. It was well worth the price! Wasn't it!
So on this thread theres comments about roof problems, Rexall breaking down completely in 10 years etc except I've heard nothing of the sort from any source that has an independent view.
Anybody feel free to cite some unbiased links to this?
Or should I just believe the latest from EIG or whoever?
And as far as "No question that Edmonton needs a new facility"
Of course theres question. Its debatable. it certainly will be municipally. But apparently not here.
People should momentarily consider the bias represented here though. This is not necessarily representative of the needs and wants of the greater Edmonton community. I'm just trying to be objective. The city has many other needs.
This isn't a need, its a want.
Ok number one it is not the EIG that did the repairs to the roof it was Northlands, but yes it must be baised to do major repairs on a roof that has been in bad shape for many years (and yes it has been published in the papers before). As well I am sure Northlands could find better use of millions of dollars than putting it into the roof but then again it must be me. Added to that how is a new arena not a need, the Oilers are only ONE tennant of this arena, concerts, the rodeo, and shows all need this type of arena as well.
How do you revitalize a river valley? Many of us in Edmonton would prefer to let nature keep it as is thank you.
:
Thank you for proving what I have said, it is a good thing that you are not or mayor because we would never be a first class city. Tell me exactly how is this a gem, because we have bike trails, ohh boy. How many people actually use the valley ? If you add some type of businesses then Valley use will grow by leaps and bounds but we can't have that because the minority starts to cry. Added to that maybe you should go back and read the papers when there was talk of river valley development and tell me how many of the "majority" thought like you
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement
What I am detecting is that you prefer that there NOT be a plurality of thought and opinion in regards to municipal projects and that we should rush forth with your biggest and best projects mantra. Yet this very thinking resulted in a "world class" rapid transit system that has gone virtually nowhere in 30 years due to massive costs of the mode Edmonton selected whereas the prudent, utilitarian system selected for Calgary is a massive civic success.
:
Tell me why that world class transit system has failed - simple because of the whining public. A minority of people here seem to be able to block everything by BS thinking like yours, not my tax dollars - not in my back yard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement
It has also resulted in a world class Commonwealth Stadium ( I do like it) that gets very little use.
Not everything thats built turns out to be as useful or necessary as it was ambitiously percieved.
Theres a need for the type of prudent decision making that seems to frustrate you. It attempts to preclude rushing forth into ill-advised projects.
:
Really seems that Commonwealth stadiun is doing wonders for the City. but then again I mean I am sure we could still have got the University games, THe IIHF, and Soccer with Clarke Stadium. Added to that I am sure the EDMONTON OWNED Eskimos would still turn a profit playing in there as well.
Can you also tell me how being prudent helped the Calgary Trail - 23rd ave interchange, which should have been made when they redid Calgary trail. Now we are paying millions more and we wasted millions on the current design but then again it must be better to cut costs because of a maybe. I also love your prudent comment because like I said how many years has it taken to do the LRT, how many years will it take to revitalize downtown, and how many years has it taken to do the ring road, but that is right lets waste more time debating and pissing around because that will benifit the city more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement
To many, the Big Owe was once percieved as a french world wonder on par with the Eiffel tower. It was well worth the price! Wasn't it!
I would rather live in a city like Montreal that is forward thinking then in Edmonton stuck in perpetual present because of whining.
is a classic example. 
Theres a human, even animal, inate nature to simply use up more space less efficiently as its provided. 
